State of Missouri v. Calvin Brown
2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 117
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Calvin Brown was charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action for the November 11, 2008 killing of his grandmother; bench trial was held November 12, 2013, resulting in convictions and life sentence.
- Extensive pretrial history: multiple competency evaluations ordered between 2010–2013; Dr. Kline initially (Aug. 2010) found psychosis and incompetence but later reports (2011, 2012) concluded competency after limited cooperation.
- Defense counsel (Ms. Fox) and prior counsel repeatedly could not communicate with Defendant pretrial; Defendant frequently refused jail visits and refused to participate in evaluations.
- On Nov. 7, 2013 counsel moved for a continuance to consult with Defendant and obtain further competency/responsibility evaluation; the motion was denied after the court found Defendant lucid and he waived a jury trial.
- Post-conviction, new evaluations (Dec. 2013–Mar. 2014) by two defense examiners and one State examiner—after Defendant had been treated with Seroquel—unanimously diagnosed a delusional (persecutory) disorder and concluded Defendant was not malingering; defense experts opined Defendant was likely incompetent to proceed in Nov. 2013 and that mental disease could have excluded criminal responsibility.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance and that Defendant was prejudiced because further evaluation and expert testimony could have affected the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denying defense continuance was reversible error | Denial proper; Defendant caused his own lack of preparation by refusing to cooperate | Counsel needed time to consult, obtain evaluations, and prepare insanity/mental-responsibility defense due to Defendant’s noncooperation and history of mental-health concerns | Trial court abused discretion: continuance denial prevented adequate preparation for a potential mental-disease defense and violated right to consult with counsel; reversal required |
| Whether Defendant was prejudiced by denial of continuance | Any prejudice was self-inflicted; some pretrial evidence suggested malingering | Post-trial experts (and even State expert) found delusional disorder and no malingering; expert proof could have been presented if continuance granted | Prejudice shown: granting continuance could have changed outcome by enabling substantial expert evidence on lack of responsibility |
| Whether prior competency rulings justified proceeding to trial | Trial-level competency findings and Defendant’s courtroom lucidity supported proceeding | Repeated pretrial competency orders, inconsistent evaluations, and counsel’s inability to consult showed need for more time and further evaluation | Court disfavored speed over defendant’s right to reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and prepare defense; continuance warranted |
| Whether post-trial evaluations could be considered in assessing prejudice | State: retrospective findings less probative; discontinuity in cooperation undermines reliability | Post-trial evaluations showed consistent diagnosis and explained increased cooperation (medication), supporting that pretrial noncooperation was illness-related | Post-trial expert consensus supported that, had a continuance been granted, Defendant could have cooperated and presented a mental-responsibility defense; contributes to finding of prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Litherland, 477 S.W.3d 156 (Mo. App. E.D.) (continuance denial review; balance of speedy resolution and defendant rights)
- State v. Kauffman, 46 S.W.2d 843 (Mo.) (continuance required when more time necessary to prepare insanity defense)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (due process requires reasonable opportunity to present defense)
- State v. McDonald, 343 S.W.2d 68 (Mo.) (defendant entitled to reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel to prepare defense)
- State v. Moss, 789 S.W.2d 512 (Mo. App. S.D.) (expert testimony on mental disease excluding responsibility constitutes substantial evidence entitling trier of fact to consider defense)